[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 1832
__________
JUNE 29, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-838CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Bynum, Arlen D., Legal Counselor, WBC........................ 7
Daniels, Alfonzo, Middleweight Boxer......................... 14
Holden, Tony, President, Next Media.......................... 11
Goossen, Dan, President, America Presents.................... 10
Sirb, Gregory P., President, Association of Boxing
Commissions................................................ 5
Material submitted for the record by:
(iii)
THE MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley and Shimkus.
Also present: Representative Hall.
Staff present: Robert Gordon, majority counsel; Bruce
Gwinn, minority counsel; and Michael Flood, legislative clerk.
Mr. Tauzin. The committee will please come to order.
Last month the Los Angeles Times revealed the results of
their investigation into widespread abuses in boxing. Sadly the
Times found that the sport of boxing continues to be pummeled
by allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest. Boxing
rankings are sold by sanctioning bodies, promoters throw
conventions for the sanctioning bodies as thinly described
bribes, and boxing managers make payments of up to $20,000 in
cash to improve their boxers' rankings and get more lucrative
cable TV fights.
Similar concerns have been echoed by the leaders of the
sport. Former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali has called for
Federal legislation to protect boxers from the, ``dishonest
ways of some promoters and managers.'' Boxing News has stated
that, ``pure unvarnished greed is killing the game. Boxing
desperately needs a Federal law to cut down on the terrible
corruption.''
Another article noted that Americans have more rights than
any people on earth, but our fight game has degenerated into
such a dirty and incestuous business that when you make noise,
you get blackballed.
Well, we are going to make some noise today, and we are
going to keep on making noise until we can turn the sport
around and hopefully reestablish boxing as the honest and clean
sport that so many of us grew up admiring and appreciating in
our lives.
I, as a caveat, will tell you that I grew up as a young boy
living in poor, rural Louisiana, and the first television that
came to our community came to my grandfather's house. It was
boxing that drew me to that television set with my dad, and it
was a wonderful bonding experience as my dad and grandfather
and I and friends from the community gathered around that only
television set in the whole community and we watched the
fights.
I can't help but really feel a pain when we see the kind of
accusations that the sport is now receiving in the press and
from those who have appreciated it, such as Muhammad Ali.
I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses today. We have two boxing promoters, Mr. Dan Goossen
and Tony Holden, who can help us understand the pressures to
influence a boxer's rating and whether the Times allegations
have any merit. Mr. Arlen ``Spider'' Bynum is joining us from
the World Boxing Council to present the perspectives of a
rating and sanctioning organization. And Mr. Greg Sirb,
president of the Association of Boxing Commissioners will
update us on what success the States have had in implementing
our earlier legislation, what additional improvements,
standards are necessary.
And we are fortunate to have a great boxer who can give us
the inside-the-ring perspective, Mr. Alfonzo Daniels, a
powerful middleweight fighter on the professional circuit.
We hope this panel will be able to talk to us, tell us in
their own words why boxing has reached what Muhammad Ali has
called, quote, its lowest point, unquote, and what we can do to
help restore its greatness.
We would also be interested in any comments by the panel on
the recent Holyfield-Lewis fight. Just last week a WBC
promotional and management team was subpoenaed to appear before
a United States grand jury investigating allegedly suspicious
fight deals. The subpoena related to the decision by an
International Boxing Federation judge in the recent heavyweight
unification fight to award the title to Holyfield, the IBF
champion, instead of to Lewis, the WBC champion who ended up by
almost every single account as a clear apparent winner,
according to most of the boxing commentators and, I might add,
most of the public who watched that fight.
Even if the fight were honestly scored, I think we need to
understand from our witnesses whether there was any conflicts
of interest in that fight that should be prohibited in the
future, and can these practices be achieved through self-
policing, or do we need congressional reforms to enable the
States to clean up the sport, root out the corruption, protect
the sport, enhance it not only for the participants, but for
all of us who have enjoyed it for so many years.
The Chair is now pleased to yield to my friend from Texas
Mr. Hall, himself a boxing addict and a man who confessed to me
1 day--I don't know if I should say this in public, Ralph--that
he had the chance to sign up a young fellow by the name of
Cassius Clay and passed him up. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. That is how smart I am. Also my son brought me a
part of a garden hose that he had put around his arm and swung
it around, and I whipped him with the rest of the garden hose,
and they came out with that Hoola Hoop about 3 years later.
I am honored to introduce Arlen Bynum, Spider; everybody
calls him Spider Bynum. He is probably the best known figure in
our State that is involved with boxing and has been on the good
clean side of boxing. But I have known him, Mr. Chairman, for
long time. And I have been knocked around by him in the
courtroom. He is a highly recognized attorney there, and his
firm is one of the better firms in the Dallas and Texas area.
But I think I will introduce him about boxing today. He has
been a fighter. He has trained fighters. He has refereed. You
have seen him on national television refereeing some of the
major fights of this country. He has been a Commission of--
member of Texas Boxing Commission, I think they call it,
licensing and regulations down there now. But he served 6 years
there. Governor Richards asked him to be a member of the
commission, and he has--since that time has become a legal
advisor to both the World Boxing Council and the North American
Boxing Federation.
He appeared at Senator McCain's hearing not too long ago
and his--I understand their position is that of course they
support any regulation that is good and supports boxing. And he
is the kind of people we need. And I think Arlen ``Spider''
Bynum is the kind of man that you would look to to be a
commissioner and to be whatever heads up any organization that
would do for the President's consideration for appointment or
for this committee's recommendation.
But I am honored to introduce him. I will tell you one last
thing about him, because both you men would understand this,
Mr. Oxley and you, that I represented plaintiffs all my life,
and we sued insurance companies, and Spider defended them. But
he came out to Rockwall, my home county, after I kind of quit
practicing, was trying to quit, going into some other things,
and we put a jury in the box, and I was representing Spider,
helping him represent a company. And, of course, the jury just
absolutely walloped us.
And a little bit later I ran into one of the jurors down
there, and she got me off to one side, and he said, Ralph, we
got them up just as high as we could for you. They couldn't
imagine me representing an insurance company. But I think I
cost Spider that victory. So he is a gentleman and friend of
mine, and a really close friend of mine. I thank you for having
him here.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
And the Chair is now pleased to recognize the vice chairman
of our committee and the author of the reform legislation, my
good friend from Ohio Mr. Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This committee has had
numerous hearings over the last two decades on the need to
reform the boxing industry. Four years ago we drafted
comprehensive reforms that established a uniform system for
licensing and supervising boxing matches. This legislation has
been an unqualified success. In fact, the legislation took
effect on the same weekend as the famous or infamous Mike
Tyson-Holyfield fight, and the rest is well known. Tyson's
actions were certainly barbaric and reprehensible. And because
of our legislation, his suspension from boxing was enforceable
and effective nationwide.
But the path to enactment was not without controversy. At
the subcommittee markup the bill was barely reported out by an
11-to-10 margin. Some members opposed the bill because they
believed it did not go far enough in addressing the conflicts
of interest and corruption that have been plaguing the sport
since its reintroduction in this country.
Fortunately both sides agreed to a moderate step-by-step
approach that enabled us to lay the foundation for the
regulation of boxing. Most of the conflict of interest
provisions were laid aside for future consideration. The full
committee passed the remaining provisions on the uniform
licensing and safety standards with a unanimous and bipartisan
vote.
Now 3 years later the States have successfully implemented
our uniform system of licensing and safety standards. We can
move forward on the members' desire to strengthen the act's
conflicts of interest provisions. I have introduced
legislation, H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act,
which achieves our goals that we were forced to leave behind.
This legislation would institute six major reforms to weed out
corruption from boxing. No. 1, it would prohibit financial
conflicts of interest between boxing managers and promoters.
Two, boxing sanctioning bodies would be required to establish
objective rating criteria. Three, bribes from promoters and
managers to sanctioning organizations would be prohibited by
law. Four, new disclosure requirements would be established to
ensure compliance. Five, we would protect boxers from
unconscionable contracts. And six, unsportsmanlike conduct
would be added as a new category of suspendable offenses.
These reforms will help save boxing and increase public
trust in the sport. I would note that this legislation has
already received support from the International Boxing Digest,
Boxing News, the editor of Ring Magazine, the World Boxing
Council and numerous boxers, including, of course, Muhammad
Ali.
I look forward to hearing further ideas from our
distinguished panel of witnesses on other problems in the
sport. I also welcome suggestions from my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle for improving this legislation and moving
forward with bipartisan support.
Mr. Chairman, like you I was thrilled to be able to watch
Friday night fights for many years on television, and had a
unique experience to get to meet and talk with Sugar Ray
Robinson back when I was a teenager, and actually had a chance
to go to his training facility in Chicago and watch him train,
and coincidentally got to meet Joe Louis on the same occasion,
which was a thrill, and I still have the autographs from both
of those gentlemen. And then I had an opportunity to watch
Sugar Ray spar before his title fight with Gene Fulmer several
weeks later.
So boxing has been an interest of yours and mine for a
number of years. And like many other members, we were saddened
to see the degenerative aspects to boxing that have led us to
where we think we need to pass Federal legislation to help
clean up the sport. It is an honorable sport. It is a great
sport. We are pleased to have representatives from that great
sport testifying before us today. We look forward to moving in
legislation, along with our good friend Senator John McCain, to
really put the final touches on our long-term efforts to make
this sport as we enter the 21st century a sport that will equal
the other professional sports that have been so popular in our
country.
And I thank the Chair and yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Tauzin. I might add to my friend's comments, I was
privileged to watch Roy Jones in Gulfport, Mississippi, just a
few weeks ago unify his title. And one of the remarkable things
about this sport and about that match in particular was that
Roy Jones won every round on every card, and won two of the
rounds 10-8, with two knock-downs, and he got booed. I couldn't
believe a fan booing that remarkable performance.
So it is a controversial sport. We know it is
controversial. We are going to hear today some of the aspects
of that controversy. And yet I want to compliment the gentleman
for his effort legislatively to begin addressing some of the
problems we will hear from the panel today.
Let me now welcome the panel. Here are our rules: Three
knock-down--no. It is we have a standard 5-minute rule, which
means that your written statements are part of our record, so
you don't have to read your statement to us. We prefer you just
talk to us, just give us your best shot of what is in your
statement, best points you got. And this little light will give
you a warning; starts out green, and when it gets to be red, it
means your time is up. Or if you rather, I could do a regular
10-second warning in the ring.
So if you just kind of converse with us a bit about your
testimony so that we can get into a dialog with you and learn
today from you as to what you think about the sport and what we
can do to improve it.
So we start with Greg Sirb, the president of the
Association of Boxing Commissioners in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Mr. Sirb, you are on, sir. Five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF GREGORY P. SIRB, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF BOXING
COMMISSIONS; DAN GOOSSEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICA PRESENTS; ARLEN D.
``SPIDER'' BYNUM, LEGAL COUNSELOR, WBC; TONY HOLDEN, PRESIDENT,
NEXT MEDIA; AND ALFONZO DANIELS, MIDDLEWEIGHT BOXER, UPPER
MARLBORO, MARYLAND
Mr. Sirb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and thank
you for having me here before you today. The past 2 years I
have been the president of the Association of Boxing
Commissions. We are a registered nonprofit group. We represent
48 State commissions, all the State commissions in the United
States, some in Canada. We are trying to include some in
Mexico. We also have the inclusion of our first Indian tribal
commission, the Pequot Tribal Commission up in Foxwood,
Connecticut.
Before I begin, I would like to share some statistics with
you. Last year for the U.S. In 1998 there were 818 pro bouts
held in this country. That was about 1 percent decrease from
the previous year. California had the most events with 90,
followed by Florida with 56; Texas, 51; Tennessee, 44; Nevada
and Missouri at 43; and Pennsylvania at 40. And it should be
noted that the United States continues to be the major leader
in boxing in this world. It held 71 of the 174 world title
bouts within its borders. That is roughly 41 percent. The next
closest country for world title bouts is England with 16. So by
far the world title bouts in boxing happens in this country.
There are approximately right now about 6,000 registered
boxers in the United States. My testimony for today is about
the regulatory control, and particularly when it comes into
your State. As a State commissioner myself, when have you a
fight in your State, particularly a title bout, you have four
major players: You have the boxers, of course; you have the
promoter, of course; have you the sanctioning body of the title
they are fighting for; and you have the commission. Those are
the four players. But only one of those four have the
legislative and statutory authority to regulate the event, and
that is the State commission. No other one of those players has
that type of regulatory authority.
There is no question each commission has to work with
particularly the boxer and particularly the promoter, he is
putting up a lot of money for the event, to work out the event,
but they should never as a State commission relinquish the
regulatory authority that is given to them.
I think over the years what has happened is there has been
some confusion between maybe a State commission and a
sanctioned body, and the word ``sanctioning'' has been confused
with the word ``regulating.'' to regulate, you have to have
statutory authority given to you by that political government
in your State. Only one party has that, and that is the State
commissions.
As the president of the ABC, we feel very strongly that
State commissions need to have the power and the regulatory
authority to regulate that event and should never delegate that
authority. The issues that you have before you in the Muhammad
Ali Act will go along way to ensure this, there is no question
about that, particularly when it comes to the major areas of
the boxer, manager and promotional contracts, the medical
requirements, and the assignment of officials.
There is no question that boxing needs to be more
professional, more consistent and more uniform than how we
handle things for the simple reason we have 48 jurisdictions
throughout this country which handle boxing possibly in 48
different ways. And one of the goals of the ABC has always been
to try to be a little bit more consistent and a little bit more
uniform in the way we handle it.
I would like to close with saying that there are a lot of
good people in boxing, a lot of people that I met over the
years. I have come up through the ranks of the sport, and there
are a lot of good people that really want to clean the sport
up, but it is obvious we have some problems. We need some help,
and hopefully with the hearings that we had the Senate and in
the House, we can look forward to work ing with and clean up
the sport and taking boxing to the level where it is supposed
to be, with basketball, baseball, football and hockey. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Gregory P. Sirb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory P. Sirb, President, Association of Boxing
Commissions
Good Morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Association of
Boxing Commissions--the ABC,
My name is Greg Sirb and for the past two years I have served as
the President of the ABC. This association is a registered non-profit
group comprised of some forty-eight (48) members including all state
boxing commissions in the United States, some commissions from Canada
and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Commission of Connecticut. It should
also be noted that three other Indian Tribal Boxing Commissions have
also requested membership into the ABC--the Miccousukee Athletic
Commission of Florida and the Oneida Indian Nation Athletic Commission
of New York and the Mohegan Tribal Commission of Connecticut.
Before I begin I would like to share with you a few statistics on
professional boxing in the United States for the 1998 calendar year,
There were 818 professional boxing events held in the United States,
which represents approximately a 1% decrease from the previous year.
California held the most events 90, followed by Florida (56), Texas
(51), Tennessee (44), Nevada and Missouri at (43), and Pennsylvania
with (40). It should be noted that the US continues to be the leader in
professional boxing activity, with 71 of the 174 world title bouts
being held within our borders, roughly 41%. England, with 16 bouts, is
the next most active country for title bouts. Currently, there are
about 8,000 registered professional boxers in this country.
My testimony before you today focuses on the regulatory control
that should be, and must be, provided by the various state boxing
commissions. When any commission has a professional boxing event in its
state, particularly a title event, there are always four major
stakeholders: (1) the boxers, (2) the promoter, (3) the sanctioning
body who's title is being fought for, and (4) the state boxing
commission. Of these four groups, only one has the legal and
legislative authority to regulate that event. That group is the state
boxing commission.
Although the other three groups, especially the boxers, deserve to
have some input regarding the event and how it is handled, only the
state commission has the statutory authority to regulate the event.
This is particularly true when it comes to those rules and regulations
that affect the health and welfare of the boxers. I believe that, over
the years, the word ``sanctioning'' has become confused with the word
``regulating''. The main difference is that to regulate you must have
statutory authority in the jurisdiction that the event is taking place.
As President of the ABC, I feel strongly that the regulatory bodies
(the state commissions), though they must work with the various
sanctioning bodies and promoters, must never delegate their authority
or responsibility when it comes to regulating a professional boxing
event.
The issues that are addressed in the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act
will go a long way toward ensuring that state regulation remain in
control of what can be a very complicated sport. This Reform Act
guarantees that state commissions and the general public will be better
informed about the contractual relationships between boxers, promoters,
and managers. It also addresses the ranking procedures for professional
boxers and discloses the revenue and expenditures that occur at an
event. These improvements will not only enhance the sport, but will
ultimately elevate professional boxing to the level that other major
sports in this country currently enjoy. A status that, I believe,
professional boxing deserves.
In my opinion, it is essential that boxing regulations become more
professional, more consistent and more uniform. Particularly in the
areas of Boxer/Manager/Promoter contracts, medical requirements for
boxers and assignments of referees and judges for particular bouts. The
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act will greatly enhance our ability to
accomplish these important objectives. Without such assurances, the
confusion that currently exists within this profession will hamper the
growth of professional boxing.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the members of this
committee for the opportunity to testify before you this morning. I
would be willing to answer any questions that you may have at this
time.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, sir.
Next would be Mr. Arlen ``Spider'' Bynum, legal counselor
of WBC in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Bynum.
STATEMENT OF ARLEN D. ``SPIDER'' BYNUM
Mr. Bynum. Thank you. I am pleased to be here, and my co-
counsel today B.C. Gabe is here, and we would be more than
happy to attempt to answer any questions you might have.
We--when Senate bill 302 or 305, whatever, was introduced,
the ABC testified before Senator McCain and Senator Bryan's
committee. We said then as we do now that the ABC supports any
legislation that improves boxing. Now, that is a very broad
statement like God, mother, country, ice cream, and 4th of
July, but it is sincerely meant. And to help implement this,
the portions of the then Senate bill and now the present House
bill, the ABC has tried to comply with. We have put on the
Internet the constitution, bylaws, rules and regulations,
championship rules, ratings; the names, addresses, faxes, known
fax numbers and so forth of all the members of the rating
committee, all the members of the board of Governors of the
WBC.
In addition thereto, about 3 or 4 weeks ago the ABC started
posting on the Internet the reasons that fighter A has moved
from number 1 to number 10. Now, obviously if Ralph Hall and I
are in a boxing match, and I am rated number 1, and he is rated
number 10, and he knocks me out, you don't have to really tell
me why I have been moved down to number 8 or 9 or maybe out of
the top 10. And you don't have to tell Representative Hall why
he has moved up to number 3, but there are reasons.
And I think it is difficult because there are, even like
Greg in Pennsylvania and Carl and his people in Maryland, the
addresses you have on fighters are probably 30 percent valid.
The idea of putting all this on the Internet works because
anyone that has interest can pick it up. And if you have
suggestions on how we could do it better, then we will be open
to those suggestions. But we are trying to comply with the
principles of the legislation long before it is passed.
Insofar as financial disclosure with the States, the ABC
has absolutely no problem with that. The fee schedules for
sanctioning fees are shown in the rules and regulations that is
on the Internet. We have offered; if this committee wants a
copy of the ABC rules, regulations, ratings criteria, medical
rules, all of that is on the Internet. But if you want it, we
will get it to you. In fact, the new rules and regulations and
so forth are being printed now.
We have tried to work very closely with the Association of
Boxing Commissions. I was on a committee in the early 1980's
that formed the Association of Boxing Commissioners with Jose
Torres, who was to speak here today, and others. I am at times
at odds with Greg on certain areas, but it is done in a manner
that we end up with a solution that works. The Association of
Boxing Commissioners is working. But something that I knew 20
years ago that is more evident now, to make this work, you are
going to have to give the ABC some way to fund itself.
Now, I am perfectly aware of the problems involved with
funding money. Money is scarce. Congress does not give money
away. But it is a worthy project; it would keep this working.
They are going to be have to be funded to do the job.
I will be more than happy to answer any questions you might
have, as will Gabe.
[The prepared statement of Arlen D. Bynum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arlen D. Bynum, Counselor, WBC
Representative Oxley and Members of The House Committee on
Commerce: It is a honor and a privilege to be asked to appear at the
hearing on H.R. 1832.
Attached to and made a part of this Statement is a letter from the
President of the World Boxing Council which shows his support of both
the House and Senate versions of H.R. 1832 and S. 305. Mr. Sulaiman has
previously appeared before Senator McCain's committee.
The World Boxing Council is made up of 156 countries and 9
Continental Federations. Several representatives of these countries and
federations are present today.
I am pleased to report that the World Boxing Council has already
complied with the majority of Section 5, Sanctioning Organization
Integrity Reforms.
The Constitution, Rules and Regulations, Ratings Criteria, Medical
Rules and Monthly Ratings and newsletter are on the Internet at
www.wbcboxing.com. Sanction fee schedules are in the Rules and
Regulations.
Also, monthly, the reasons for changes in the World Boxing Council
ratings are published. Likewise, the names, fax numbers and telephone
numbers of the Board of Governors and Members of the World Boxing
Council Ratings Committee are on the Internet.
If any member of this Committee would like to have a copy of any of
the above, it will be furnished.
The World Boxing Council files a yearly tax return in the United
States.
The World Boxing Council fully complies and will in the future
comply with Section 17, Required Disclosures to State Boxing
Commissions.
The World Boxing Council's Rules and Regulations provide for only
one option given by a challenger to a promoter.
The World Boxing Council has found that the majority of State
Commissions have statutes and/or rules that protect the interests and
rights of boxers competing in their states. Further, it has been the
experience of the World Boxing Council that the majority of State
Commissions are doing a creditable job in the licensing and regulation
of boxing in their jurisdictions.
The World Boxing Council has worked closely with the Association of
Boxing Commissioners as to ways to improve boxing and will continue to
do so.
For all world title contests held in the United States, the World
Boxing Council has agreed to use the Uniform Rules as adopted by the
Association of Boxing Commissioners and has used and applied these
Rules for several months.
Each year the World Boxing Council has Ring Officials Seminars and
Medical Seminars. Ring officials and doctors from all over the world
attend these seminars. These seminars are well attended and the
information developed is available to any ring official, doctor, State
Commission and Congress.
I have not made any mention of the part of H.R. 1832 relating to
Promoters, but I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee
might have.
Likewise, I am not aware if the recently filed amendments regarding
medical examinations, CT scans for boxers and the public announcing of
judge's scores after each round will be discussed. I am prepared to
answer any questions relating to this. If the Committee so desires, I
will prepare a Supplemental Statement.
If there is any other information you need from the World Boxing
Council prior to the June 24th hearing, let me know.
Gabe Penagaricano, the other Legal Counselor to the World Boxing
Council, will appear with me on June 24th along with other
representatives of the World Boxing Council as mentioned above.
______
World Boxing Council
June 15, 1999
Representative Michael G. Oxley
U.S. Representative
Washington, D.C.
Honorable Representative Oxley: I deeply regret my unavailability
to participate in the House Hearing on June 24 in Washington, due to my
trip to Asia, which covers several countries in the area, and I had
committed for since long ago.
I hope that if there is one other hearing in the very near future,
I will certainly participate. In the meantime, I am forming a committee
headed by Mr. Arlen D. Bynum, WBC General Counselor at Large, and some
representatives from our affiliated federations around the world.
I take the opportunity of ratifying the unanimous decision of the
WBC to participate, as needed, in full support of the plan of the
Government of the U.S. for the improvement of boxing in that country.
The WBC has already instituted in its system, many of the rules as
detailed in the Muhammad Ali Legislation, as well as some
recommendations, and we are more than willing to continue working
closely and positively with the committee.
I beg you to accept my very respectful regards and the best of
luck.
Dr. Jose Sulaiman
Chairman
Mr. Tauzin. The next person is Dan Goossen, president of
America Presents, of Denver, Colorado.
STATEMENT OF DAN GOOSSEN
Mr. Goossen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am very proud and honored to be here today. On the other
hand, I am very disgusted that our industry has to go through
this routine to clean itself up.
You mentioned earlier about that we have to be on the level
of other sports. I think it was Mr. Oxley, Congressman Oxley.
And we should be at the level of other sports. It is one of the
great sports in the history of America, of this world. Right
now we haven't been able to clean it up ourselves.
I was driving over here today for the hearing today, and on
the radio one of the news broadcasts was that the hearings were
being--were taking place today, and that it is about promoters
and how they take advantage of fighters. And it really kind of
nailed that last little portion of disgust onto me because last
Sunday there was another article in the papers, Don Turner,
trainer of Evander Holyfield and Michael Grant, two top
heavyweights as we know, and he was saying that all promoters
are crooks, thieves. And you just get tired of it. You finally
want to stand up and say, listen, don't put us all in the same
category.
My background, I got into the boxing business in 1982. My
dad dabbled in the boxing, training and managing fighters when
he was also on the LAPD's--Los Angeles Police Department being
a detective, went into the DA's office. And he taught us to be
honorable, hard-working, and have integrity. And we brought
that, I think, into our business back in 1982, a company called
10 Goose Boxing, named after the eight boys and two girls in
the family. And our goal at that time was to change the boxing
business.
These problems have been going on for many years. One of
the key ingredients was not to have the boxing business change
us. And today with Senator McCain pushing, and his vision along
with this committee, seeing that there are a lot of ills that
we cannot take care of ourselves--and from that position I can
remember when the Boxing Reform Act was in discussion period,
everyone said that it will never happen. Well, as we know, it
became law. The Muhammad Ali Act, same discussions: Oh, it is
not going to happen.
It is going to happen, and it needs to happen. We need that
enforcement. We need to take care of having a body enforce the
integrity of this sport. It should be at the level of the other
major sports.
I participated in the boxing task force that was going to
supply recommendations to Senator McCain, and it took many,
many hours, started a little over a year ago, prior to the
Lewis-Holyfield debacle back on March 13rd. Now, that point, I
was again upset and disappointed that we had no promoters,
virtually no boxing people on this boxing task force. I think
there were two that were constantly on it. And we felt, my
partner Matt Tinley, America Presents, the company that we run,
we felt it was important to get the ship in the right
direction. And many, many hours, telephone conference calls,
meetings, everything there was to try to supplement and help
out the recommendations as it related to the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Act, and we did that because we do care about the sport,
and we do want it run properly, and we do want the protection
of the fighters. But it is fair to say we all need protection:
the managers, the trainers, the promoters. There are good
people in this business. It is a great business. We have just
got to make sure that from the standpoint of the ABC, which I
have had many conversations with the president Greg Sirb and
some of the other vice presidents of the ABC, that we--the time
is now for us to police ourselves and supplement everything
that Senator McCain and this committee has established.
But we need to get uniform contracts, uniform rules and
licensing, uniform medicals, and most importantly, last but not
least, an officials school that you touched on before, Mr.
Chairman, and that is the integrity where the fans and the
fighters have trust in our judges and our officials. I will go
into that later on any questions you might have.
I see my time is up. Thank you again for letting me speak.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Dan.
Next, to shed more perspective on the promoters' aspects,
Mr. Tony Holden, president of Next Media of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Tony.
STATEMENT OF TONY HOLDEN
Mr. Holden. I want to thank you for having me out. First of
all, my name is Tony Holden. I am also president of Holden
Productions. We have been boxing promoting for 10 years. And
one thing I want to address, what Dan said, is there is a few
bad seeds out there that give all of us a reputation. Dan
brought up his grandfather. Well, my grandfather was a
minister, my father is a minister, and I am a boxing promoter.
So the image do have a tendency to make you duck your head, and
it is really not right sometimes. But I want to bring up some
things that are probably going to project the image just a
little bit worse. But I hate doing that, but since we are going
to try to get this thing fixed, I think we need to dig it up at
once, because I feel we have one shot at this thing.
One of the differences between pro sports and boxing, you
have the NBA, the NFL, these kids are mainly picked up through
the draft. To get to the draft, you have to go to college. You
have to get a college degree, and you have to maintain a
certain grade point average. To be a professional boxer, you
know, half the kids might not even have a high school diploma,
and yet these kids are going on business, with God-given
talents, who can be multimillionaires in the future, they are
going in and negotiating their own contracts with no attorney,
no counseling. And the problem is a lot of times, yes, it is
the promoters that take advantage of these kids, but another
thing is they develop trust with a manager. They will go get a
manager and sign a multiyear deal, and if the manager does not
perform, the kid, the fighter still has to pay him throughout
that term. There is no performance clauses. Or it is very rare.
There is nothing, no standard performance clause.
And again, a manager can take up to 33\1/3\ percent. NBA
and NFL can only take up to 3 percent as an agent. Let's look
at the difference, and I have seen this happening many times. A
boxer will have problems with management. He is not performing.
He has got a 5-year deal. He has nothing to do; I mean, no
fights, nothing at all. He is sitting there with his livelihood
at a standstill. He will have to hire another manager and pay
another high commission, and I have seen this happen three to
four times with a boxer is making nil just trying to make ends
meet. And I believe that this ought to be addressed and set up
some type of guidelines to protect the fighters in this sport
because a lot of times they do put a lot of trust in the
management, and the management is not quite there looking out
after the fighter.
And one more thing. I support this bill 100 percent, but
there is one thing I would like to break down on this bill.
There should be guidelines on how it is going to be policed,
and I believe that we need to really step up the State
commissions to really handle this bill.
Now, the problem with the State commissions is there is no
guidelines on the hiring. Each State is--a commissioner can be
appointed by Governor, labor commissioner, it all varies. And I
am glad to see Mr. Sirb here trying to get everything together,
but he can only have so much power when this thing is split up
in all different--within all different States. I come from a
State where we hired a new commissioner 2 years ago. This State
did 28 boxing shows a year. This commissioner had absolutely no
experience whatsoever. He was positioned in as a favor; you
know, I really don't know how he got in there. But the very
first fight he did, he suspended 13 out of the 14 fighters.
These kids cannot go to work. They were under suspension. It
was an embarrassment to their career. It took approximately 6
months to get him to lift the suspension. And he suspended them
on a rule that did not exist. He had to come back and
apologize. But anyway, the State went from 28 shows a year to 1
show a year simply because there was no guidelines on hiring
this commission.
And there is a lot of good people out there; Mark Ratner,
Mr. Sirb, Mills Lane. I believe that this committee should also
develop guidelines. If you can't force the States to abide to
them, you can recommend it to them. But it is hard to keep the
discipline in this sport if every State varies and every rule
is different. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Tony Holden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Holden, President, Next Media
I want to thank this committee for inviting me to speak. I have
been a professional boxing promoter for the last ten years. My company,
Holden Productions, has promoted boxing events from small charity fund
raisers to top pay-per-view events.
As a promoter and a fan of the sport, I support the bill, H.R.
1832. This bill is a large step in adding more credibility to the
sport. There have been several statements made in front of this
committee of how, unlike other professional sports, boxing operates
without any league or industry business practices. I am sad to say that
boxing goes a step further, but in the wrong direction. Not only do
other sports have to operate under certain standards, they also receive
the majority of their athletes from a draft. To be entered in the
draft, you are more than likely going to have a college degree. For
these athletes to compete in college, they are required to maintain a
certain grade point average. Most athletes have to maintain a certain
grade point average to play sports even when they were in high school.
Compare this to professional boxing. The majority of these athletes
never went to college and a large percentage are high school dropouts.
The point I am making is the majority of these athletes have no formal
education. This leaves them very vulnerable of being manipulated by a
few very aggressive promoters and managers. Several of these athletes
will sign a multi-year contract without any counsel to review their
contract. Many fighters have fallen to the deceitful words, ``Trust me,
here is some up-front cash. Now sign here.'' There is little question
that for years professional boxers have been exploited and used to
their detriment and to the benefit of unscrupulous promoters/managers/
consultants. These professional boxers have never had a representative
group to assist them or be an advocate on their behalf. The reference
in the preamble to the restrictiveness and anti-competitiveness of some
business practices of certain promoters and sanctioning bodies has been
something which has plagued the industry for years and is extremely
difficult to overcome.
Another problem with the sport is the monopoly of the championship
titles held by a very few promoters. The word ``options'' is what keeps
this monopoly alive. To fight one of these promoters' champions, your
fighter has to sign options. This keeps the title under the promoters
contract. A promoter may argue that such demands make it more fair
because the promoter would not care which fighter won since he had both
under contract. However, this type of argument fails because a
promoter, even with both fighters under contract, may still favor the
more ``marketable'' fighter. If two promoters are involved, one should
do what he can to protect his fighter against any favoritism.
If there is less monopoly, it would create more competition which
would force promoters to negotiate and to execute these contracts with
good business practices. This alone would bring much integrity to the
sport. As H.R. 1832 places limiting options to one year, it does take a
step towards breaking the monopoly.
My company has never had long-term contract problems or option
problems. The reason for this is that during the last ten years, we
have never signed a fighter to a promotional deal. Many promoters
believe this practice is very naive, but I can assure you that we have
never had a fighter leave our company. I don't believe I should force a
fighter to work for me. I am not against contracts. I believe if a
promoter produces a signing bonus, he must be assured that he will get
his investment back in the future. However, no fighter should ever be
obligated longer than two years. One of the key factors which this Bill
must address is to have some type of automatic termination rights in
the promotional rights agreements to avoid the boxer from having to
hire legal counsel, file suit and be effectively shelved for an
indefinite period of time during the boxer's prime boxing years. What
will occur is that a fighter and a promoter may have a five-fight deal
or a three-year deal or something of the like, and toward the end of
the contract, the promoter wishes to extend the contract for another
certain term. There are basically two methods in which a promoter will
leverage the boxer to do this: (1) a promoter will simply try to tie up
the fighter alleging that one of the fights may not have been completed
or a draw or had been postponed thus extending the contract or (2)
using his influence with the sanctioning body so that the fighter is
concerned that he will lose the match regardless of how well he fights.
This is an extremely predominant practice and it requires the boxer to
concede on various issues simply to be able to fight and make some type
of a living while still being oppressed by his promoter.
I would like to express my concerns on this bill. I believe the
enforcement should be through the State Commission, as to do otherwise
would create a myriad of problems. But there are several problems with
the State Commissions. One major handicap these Commissions have are
the sanctioning bodies. Whenever there is a Title Fight, the Commission
loses much control. To have Title Fight, the State Commission is forced
to use the sanctioning bodies' referee and usually two of their judges.
This deletes the commission's authority on any discipline for a bad
decision by a judge or a referee.
Another problem is that certain States are vulnerable in hiring
unexperienced commissioners. There are no guidelines for States to hire
a commissioner with any qualifications or experience. Each State has
different methods for hiring a commissioner. This sometimes results in
an administrator being transferred or the hiring of a commissioner with
absolutely no experience in the sport. These results can be
devastating. For example, two years ago a State hired a new
commissioner with no formal boxing experience. One show he suspended
every fighter on a card except one, that is 13 fighters that could not
fight again until this suspension was lifted. The reason for the
suspension is that the commissioner accused the fighters of not
complying with a series of rules. The problem was these rules never
existed and after several weeks of these fighters being banned from the
sport, the commissioner was forced to lift the suspension. More and
more problems occurred due to lack of this commissioner's experience,
resulting in the sport to disappear. In one year, this State went from
over 25 events down to one.
Before we can enforce the rules and add new measures, such as H.R.
1832, we must first lay out the groundwork. We must have guidelines for
the hiring of State Commissioners. I strongly suggest that we get the
most experienced people involved in this process, such as Nevada's Mark
Ratner or Judge Mills Lane. This sport is an American tradition and it
needs the help of this committee to allow it to continue.
I want to thank this committee and Senator McCain for taking time
in their busy schedules to help create an important change that is
desperately needed in the sport of boxing.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Holden.
And finally, Mr. Alfonzo Daniels, middleweight boxer from
Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Welcome. You are going to give us the
perspective from inside the ring about how the sport works and
how promoters and managers operate with boxers. So you got a 5-
minute round.
STATEMENT OF ALFONZO DANIELS
Mr. Daniels. I don't think I am trained enough for this
one. It is kind of hard to go off of what Mr. Holden just said.
What he said is absolutely--boxers put a lot of trust in their
managers, people who see their talent a lot of times before we
see it ourselves. So we say, hey, this guy is the other--he is
the inside of my head that really says I am good, I can be the
best. So when we sit down and we do up a contract with these
gentlemen that realize our talents, we really have no idea what
it really is worth. So there may lie a problem when we don't
know our own value and they do.
When I first got into this sport of boxing some 10 years
ago, boxing had a very good name, a very good name. You could
see 1,000 kids in neighborhoods running around shadowboxing,
and, you know, not only young kids, you see older gentlemen
shadowboxing and wanting to be boxers. Now boxing has a bad
name. A lot of people wonder if 24 and 4 why am I still in this
sport, and my hope is to someday sign that big contract and be
a champion and have to deal with the big troubles that are
involved with the contract, and the lawyers, and the promoters,
and giving up that big percentage that is not given in any
other sport.
So this legislation is definitely necessary. I had written
up a little chart here, but I am just trying to go off my head
here like you wanted. But definitely let's get it through,
let's make it happen swiftly. But one question involved here is
between the contracts and the fighters, and only looking after
fights that are 10 rounds and above. There is a lot of times
that where fighters sign a contract way before they ever get to
a 10-round fight. So we have to look at them before they get to
10 rounds because they sign their contract and the rest of
their boxing career away before they ever reach that point.
Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Daniels.
And the Chair will recognize himself and the members in
order.
Let me ask you, Mr. Daniels, in terms of--when it is--when
you first were asked to sign a contract, was there competition
for you? Were there several managers trying to get to you sign
with them, or was there just one manager talking to you?
Mr. Daniels. Luckily it was just one manager talking to me.
Mr. Tauzin. You say luckily, but wouldn't it have been
better--I mean, in basketball, for example, we just made a
comparison in basketball as a player that really looks good, a
lot of teams take a look at him, they sent scouts out there,
there is a competition for him, you know, everybody wants him.
They are trying to pick him in the draft, and they are willing
to pay him a tidy sum because it is very competitive. But in
your sport very often it is just one manager shows up to sign a
contract with a boxer, right?
Mr. Daniels. Right.
Mr. Tauzin. That doesn't help you negotiate. Nobody else
vying for you, so do you--do you end up just signing with the
first guy that paints a nice rosy picture for you?
Mr. Daniels. Pretty much. The route I came, I was stationed
in the Army overseas in Germany, and most of my amateur career
was from over there. I only came back stateside for three
fights before I turned pro. And one gentleman came up and said,
hey, let's go up to the State commission. I would like turn you
pro and, you know, do up a contract. And lo and behold, we were
sitting in front of the State athletic commissioner signing a
contract.
Mr. Tauzin. That fast. How many fights did you fight below
10 rounds after signing that contract?
Mr. Daniels. About 10.
Mr. Tauzin. So you signed way before you ever got a 10-
round fight.
Mr. Daniels. That is correct.
Mr. Tauzin. Your record is 24 and 4 right now.
Mr. Daniels. Correct.
Mr. Tauzin. That is a pretty good record. What is your
chances of getting that big fight?
Mr. Daniels. At this point? I'll say luckily I am unsigned.
So hopefully somebody will say, hey, here is a kid that has got
potential, let's grab ahold of him and get him that shot.
Mr. Tauzin. But you got to kind of wait for that to happen.
Mr. Daniels. Exactly. It is a waiting game.
Mr. Tauzin. Tell me how this works now. Mr. Holden, you
talk about the big percentages that are paid. Why is it so high
in this sport? Is there a good reason, justification for taking
that much of a boxer's pay?
Admittedly Mr. Oxley's bill is going to try to regulate
those contracts so there is some quid pro quo and there is some
standards that you won't indenture a boxer forever in a
contract, but obviously it is kind of hard to get into legally
setting the right of a commission. And that is normally left to
the marketplace to set it. But why is it so high in boxing?
Mr. Holden. Well, because that is really a two-sided sword,
because if you get a boxer early in his career, he might be
fighting for $100 a round, and you are going to have to--a lot
of times if I want to get a fighter fights, I might go to
another promoter and say, hey, I will pay half his purse or
whatever, just to start getting him experience where there is
no money in it. But where the problem comes is when a
promoter--or a manager, rather, grabs a big-name fighter making
big-time money and starts taking that percentage when he didn't
get him there, and that happens quite a bit.
So it is going to be hard to justify a percentage. Keep in
mind I said the NBA and NFL gets 3 percent, but look at the
dollars that go into. They have a minimum.
Mr. Tauzin. Dan, give me your perspective on it, please.
Mr. Goossen. Well, Mr. Chairman, first off I think that 33
percent percentage that managers receive is way too much. You
have almost seen a decrease at the major level of the position
of a manager. If you look at Evander Holyfield, for instance,
he doesn't have a manager. He has a trainer, and he has an
attorney, Jim Thomas. It is at the lower level really where we
need to control that 33\1/3\ percent. In the older days, 20, 30
years ago, it wasn't unheard of for a manager to give a monthly
stipend to a fighter, living expenses, rent, food, everything
to keep him above water until he got to the big time so that he
was able to concentrate on boxing. Now, at that point, unlike
an agent in another sport, you usually aren't on a baby-sitting
job 24 hours a day.
Mr. Tauzin. It is kind of like an investment; you are
investing in a future product.
Mr. Goossen. Exactly. But in today's world that
responsibility--I am already cutoff.
Mr. Tauzin. Go ahead. The good thing about being Chairman.
Mr. Goossen. My answers for questions are just as long as
my speech.
But in today's world, it is kind of reversed onto the
promoter. The promoter is now taking care of the monthly
stipend. So we see less and less of managers out there,
especially at the higher level.
Mr. Tauzin. With the indulgence of my friends, if you
quickly just give me your opinion of the Holyfield-Lewis fight,
honestly scored in your opinion?
Mr. Sirb. No.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Goossen.
Mr. Goossen. I wouldn't say that it was dishonest, but I
would certainly say it was incompetent scoring.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Bynum.
Mr. Bynum. My feelings exactly.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Holden.
Mr. Holden. I would have to say highly influenced.
Mr. Tauzin. Say that again.
Mr. Holden. Highly influenced.
Mr. Tauzin. Highly influenced; i.e., dishonest.
Mr. Holden. Well, I don't believe that the judge was told
to make Evander win. I think the judge is there representing
that organization and gave Evander the nod, knowing that he
represented the organization he was with.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Daniels.
Mr. Daniels. From a boxer's point of view?
Mr. Tauzin. Boxer's point of view.
Mr. Daniels. Lewis was robbed.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Oxley.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Daniels, in your career, now, is fighting a
full-time profession, or do you have other means of income?
Mr. Daniels. Right now I have other means of income, and
thank goodness, because until you hit that pinnacle and you get
that promoter behind you, you have to have a day job.
Mr. Oxley. What is your day job?
Mr. Daniels. Right now I am working with with a plastic
surgeon. I am his assistant. I am a rare breed. I am a rare
breed.
Mr. Oxley. You can work on Holyfield's ear.
Mr. Daniels. I think we can do that.
Mr. Oxley. That is quite an interesting day job. Are you--
in your career--you say you are 24 and 4; is that correct?
Mr. Daniels. Correct.
Mr. Oxley. And how old are you?
Mr. Daniels. Just turned 29.
Mr. Oxley. What would be agewise considered a prime for a
fighter?
Mr. Daniels. Twenty-nine.
Mr. Oxley. Interesting.
Mr. Daniels. Supposedly we get that manly strength and
knockout punch, and days are shorter in the ring. And thank
goodness, I am looking so forward to them.
Mr. Oxley. What is your weight classification?
Mr. Daniels. Middleweight, 160.
Mr. Oxley. And you have always fought in that
classification?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Oxley. And you mentioned the fact that as far as a
manager, you had a good relationship with your manager?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, I have. But kind of things have slowed
because we are waiting and waiting, and that call is not
coming. So I am growing impatient by the moment and ready to
break.
Mr. Oxley. Have you fought in different States?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, I have.
Mr. Oxley. How many?
Mr. Daniels. Three different States.
Mr. Oxley. And from your perspective can you tell the
difference State to State in terms of regulations and the
enforcement procedure by the commission and so forth?
Mr. Daniels. Well, one of the States that I fought in I
really don't believe they had a commission. And I fought in
Pennsylvania with Mr. Sirb, and here in Maryland, locally. And
Maryland and Pennsylvania are pretty stiff, and everything
seems to be on the up and up.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Sirb, let me ask you, how many State
commissions are there?
Mr. Sirb. We have--right now I think we have five that do
not have a State commission.
Mr. Oxley. Is that because they don't have boxing matches
there?
Mr. Sirb. They have boxing matches there, but the State
government itself has decided not to form a commission. So
again, under the Professional Boxing Safety Act they have to
have a commission come in and supervise that event, and we have
had some minor problems with that, and we are going to look for
some revisions to that.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Goossen, you mentioned that boxing needs
protection, but protection from whom? And help me understand
what that means in terms of writing legislation.
Mr. Goossen. Unfortunately it is protection from the
industry itself. We have not been responsible enough in
policing it. So the protection that we have seen now is in the
form of the legislation that is before us. However, I feel for
the health and the growth of our industry, we need to start
policing ourselves. The promoters need to be the leaders
because, again, you can almost target in the Muhammad Ali Act
promoters and sanctioning organizations. And if promoters are
targets, that means that overall promoters are doing something
wrong. When we see a baseball owner or football owner, we don't
see the players and the owners at odds all the time. I mean,
they are on the same team. And we need to have the industry as
a whole police themselves without legislation always having to
be down our neck because it means we are doing something wrong.
Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Oxley. Mr. Shimkus is
recognized.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First question to Mr. Bynum. Do sanctioning organizations
or their employees ever receive payments or gifts from
promoters or managers other than any publicly reported
sanctioning fees?
Mr. Bynum. I was going to note that right above that
question is the word ``bribe.'' I, as a fighter, as training
fighters, a commission member, State commission member, as a
member of the World Boxing Council and one of their lawyers, I
am not aware of anyone bribing, and they certainly haven't
tried to do me. And I don't even get paid for what I am doing.
And insofar as do sanctioning organizations get money from
promoters for other than sanction fees, now, that is a very
valid question, and my friend Dan Goossen and I have discussed
this. The only thing I am aware of is that at sanctions
organizations, conventions, and I can speak only for the World
Boxing Council and the North American Boxing Federation,
promoters do on occasion pay for a dinner held during that
convention. But as far as actually paying for the convention,
the answer is no.
Now, I can give you a good example where two present big-
name promoters several years ago funded, along with Everlast
and another glove company, safety tests to be done on gloves,
ring padding, ropes and so forth in Wayne State University.
Now, this was owned by half of the sanctioning organization.
These two promoters paid--I think my recollection is clear--
$10,000 each to Wayne State University for this particular
program to be done. It was done by the Texas Boxing Commission
and the World Boxing Council.
What came out of that changed a great deal of things on
gloves, ropes, ring padding, boxing safety, whether head gear
would or would not prohibit injuries, and so forth. That is a
payment, but it is also for a specific purpose.
Insofar as promoters paying anything to sanctioning bodies
on behalf of the ABC, I can tell you I am not aware of it at
all except for the dinners on occasion at the conventions
yearly.
Mr. Shimkus. I guess some would say it is kind of funny for
us to be asking that question when we are accused of dinners
and that ourselves. So----
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield, and I will be happy
to extend his time.
I point out that the Times magazine article we referred to
earlier in the introduction of this hearing contained some
rather interesting statements; for example, Ron Weathers, a
manager in Texas, testifying under subpoena to the grand jury,
New Jersey, quote, It is just common knowledge that if you want
to get something done, you have got to grease their palms--
referring to the sanctioning bodies--either $10,000 or $20,000,
depending upon where you want the guy rated. In addition, rival
promoter Bob Aram says as far back as 1983 he paid $500,000 to
a Puerto Rican promoter whom Aram described as a bag man for
the WBA. Payment was made to get a title fight for Ray ``Boom
Boom'' Mancini. The Puerto Rican promoter has denied the
accusation to Ring Magazine. But those accusations are in
print, and apparently before the grand jury in New Jersey.
And so I want to--again, I will extend the gentleman's
time--but I want to point out that it is not just a question in
the sort of the ether, it is a question drawn from actual
statements being made before grand juries that those types of
payments are being paid to the sanctioning organizations. And
perhaps would you like to respond to that.
Mr. Bynum. I would be more than happy to address that.
First, insofar as Ron Weathers is concerned, I have known him
for 25 years. I think you need to consider the source there.
Insofar as people coming to conventions and paying $20,000 to
get their fighters moved up in the ratings, I am not aware of
that at all. And, Gabe, if you are aware of it--I am just not--
if it happens, it doesn't happen in front of me, or around me,
or near me. And we have got two promoters here, and I can
guarantee you that neither Tony nor Dan has ever paid a cent to
get a fighter moved up in the ratings.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me continue, Mr. Daniels. I apologize. I
had a press conference to go to, otherwise I would have been
here for your opening comments. Twenty-nine years old, enjoy
the sport, I guess I have two--you hear all this surrounding
you about the industry. I hope you don't get blacklisted
because of testifying and not be rated someday because of your
openness.
Two questions, if you could, quickly: What are the
perceived problems from young aspiring athletes as yourself,
and where are the doors closed that should be opened based upon
your ability? Second, how do we fix it?
Mr. Daniels. Where are the doors closed? The doors are
closed if you don't have a good promoter. No door can be open
if you don't have a good promoter. I don't care if you are a
terrible fighter or a great fighter. A great fighter without a
good promoter doesn't get a chance. A bad fighter with a good
promoter will get a chance.
Mr. Shimkus. Can I interrupt? What is the difference
between a good promoter and a bad promoter?
Mr. Daniels. Who can get you seen.
Mr. Shimkus. And how do you think they have that ability to
get seen?
Mr. Daniels. TV--TV, radio. I have appeared on TV Home Team
Sports a couple times, Tuesday Night Fights before they were
canceled or went out of business, one or the other.
If you can be seen, you can get that shot. You can be
noticeable to the other boxing organizations. You have room to
lobby your cause that, hey, this is--I have got a good fighter
here, he is talented, he is marketable, let's get him rated,
let's get him a shot to become a champion.
Mr. Shimkus. What is the financial incentive of a promoter?
What is the contract they sign with you?
Mr. Daniels. I believe they receive a part of that 33
percent; whatever that percentage may be is between the manager
and the promoter. Hopefully that doesn't come out of my 66.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Goossen, you are a promoter.
Mr. Goossen. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Does that jibe with--really great command of
the English language--but is that similar from your
perspective?
Mr. Goossen. What I would say with reference to what Mr.
Daniels just mentioned, doors open with promoters. Promoters
are leaders. We do approximately 50 events a year, and we want
that special fighter because it is a lot of work from day 1
when they have their first four-round fight up until they have
an opportunity to win a world title, and our business is so
loaded down, loaded with low-paying--that red light always goes
on when I am speaking. I have got to shorten my answers. There
is so little money at the lower levels of boxing that it is
very important for fighters to get hooked up with promoters.
The unfortunate thing, and where we are sitting here today,
is that we have got promoters that will promote unfairly, will
do things that we are sitting here discussing. And
unfortunately it is a reflection on our whole business. When we
make an investment into a fighter, that investment is to get
them to the world title so that we can all enjoy money. A
fighter's percentage that he pays to a manager in our case, and
I can't speak for any other promoters--in our case we have no
piece of any management or fighter's share. We are obligated
through our contracts to pay a fighter a certain amount of
money minimum to be negotiated in good faith above that minimum
and our--any type of revenue we would receive are based on the
promotion being successful or unsuccessful, depending upon the
case.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow up with this.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection the gentleman's time is
extended.
Mr. Shimkus. Do promoters receive other revenue in the
industry other than their contractual relationship with the
boxer?
Mr. Goossen. There isn't necessarily a contractual
obligation financially for a promoter to make X amount of
dollars. The risk is normally only with the promoter. We have
to put up money, and hopefully through the generation of ticket
sales, site fees, international television, domestic
television, sponsorships we are able not to only pay for
commitments to the fighters and to the commissions, everyone
else, but that hopefully we are able to make some money through
that promotion. So there isn't any clear-cut percentage that a
promoter receives. Sometimes it could be a profit; sometimes it
could be a loss.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. The Chair is going to
relinquish the Vice Chair to continue this hearing. I have to
move to another function, but I want to conclude with a couple
words. First of all, to boxers like Mr. Daniels, you know this
sport owes an awful lot, really does, the hours these young
fighters put into preparing themselves, and as Mr. Oxley
pointed out, having those day jobs to keep them going while
they are constantly in training waiting for that phone to ring,
and what they contribute to the sport compels us, I think, to
think seriously about changing some rules up here to better
give them a chance to have a decent contract and have a chance
to get that big shot 1 day.
But there is another group of witnesses who are not here
sitting at the table. That is the sports fans who buy those
pay-per-view you know tickets, and who attend the live events,
and who support HBO and Showtime and others, and, give them a
lot of credit, spend a lot of money helping the boxers get seen
and have a chance to move up in the ranks, too. As you pointed
out the fact you got on a couple of televised fights, I know
that has helped, had to help your career.
So it is to those sports fans who you know bought those
pay-per-view tickets at a healthy price to watch a fight they
all agreed was misjudged badly. The boxer Mr. Holyfield is a
beloved figure in boxing. I saw him the other night. He was at
the Roy Jones, cheers from crowds. He is extremely well
admired, and yet his career was so badly tarnished by that
decision that you wonder why we let this happen for so long.
In short, let me thank you for coming today and for sharing
with us your support for what Mr. Oxley and Chairman McCain are
doing. I want to pledge to you my personal help and support in
moving this legislation. You have given us some ideas to
improve it, particularly your thoughts about contracts entered
into long before you ever get a 10-round fight. I think that is
a very excellent consideration we need to take into account.
And finally while we can't regulate the fees that are paid,
we certainly ought to do something about the fact--about
stopping a boxer being caught in two or three such managerial
fees where there is nothing left for him. There ought to be
something, and perhaps we ought to think about that, that
prevents a boxer from ending up in other contracts. And I know
in a codal system in Louisiana we prevent contracts that are
clearly designed to defraud one of the parties out of their
rights, and the contract where you give up 2 and 3 times the 33
percent sounds like you have been defrauded out of your rights
as a boxer, and perhaps we ought to give that some thought,
too. But in any event, I want to offer my help to you and your
efforts to get this legislation moving.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Oxley in the Chair, with my
thanks to all the witnesses today.
Mr. Oxley [presiding]. Let me ask the first question of Mr.
Sirb on this round. As you know, we passed legislation 3 years
ago, and many of us felt that it was a solid first step. Could
you take us through some of the pluses and perhaps some of the
shortcomings of the previous legislation and which are the
areas that we need to work on?
Mr. Sirb. Well, the two biggest things that really were
great successes so far were the passing of the Federal ID
system. That improved boxing 100 percent. Every boxer now has a
Federal ID card with his picture on it, a six-digit number that
follows him wherever he goes, which helps us in recordkeeping
and helps us if he is medically suspended to track this guy. So
when a boxer comes into your State, he gives you the card.
The ABC developed the card at no cost to the State
commissions. We gave out over 5,000 of these cards. And when
the boxer comes to your State, he hands you the card. You can
see his picture ID, birth date, Social Security. That part has
cleaned up 100 percent in boxing. That has really improved.
Along with that, with the help of the Professional Boxing
Safety Act, was the medical suspensions. By making it a crime
to participate while medically suspended raised every State up
to a new level. They had to move up to a new level. The ABC put
this national suspension list on the Web. It is instantaneously
updated. You can go right onto the Web page. You can look at a
boxer's name. You can see how long he has been medically
suspended, why he was suspended, and what State put him on
suspension. That site is used constantly by not only promoters,
but matchmaker organizations and State commissions so that when
you have a fight card come to your State, you can look real
quick on the suspension list: I can't let him fight; he is on
suspension right now.
Those are the two big things that have really improved, and
that comes right from that Professional Boxing Safety Act.
There is no question about that.
Mr. Oxley. And what would have happened in the Mike Tyson
situation had not that legislation been on the books regarding
uniform policing?
Mr. Sirb. You know, with Mike Tyson being such a monetary
draw, if he came into your State, there is no question that he
would have fought, you know, a few months or a couple months
somewhere because of the fact that you know he brings in such a
draw on that. As you stated in your testimony, that happened
about a day after, a couple days after the actual bill took
effect. That is when I just became president. The first thing I
got thrown at me was that situation. And I was very proud of
all the State commissions that stuck together. We--I think we
handled it. Even though we may have had some problems, I think
we handled that situation. And again, it came from the Safety
Act that gave us that authority.
Mr. Oxley. It would have been very tempting, I think, for
some State to look the other way.
Mr. Sirb. Even my State, myself, of course, it would have
been tempting. You are talking about an individual who draws in
millions of State revenue when he fights in Nevada and other
major casino States. I am sure, yeah, it would have been
tempting.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Goossen, you served as a member of the
National Association of Attorneys General Boxing Task Force.
What recommendations came out of those meetings? Which ones
should we consider as part of the boxing reform legislation?
Mr. Goossen. Mr. Oxley, the recommendations that I think
were the key issues and very important for the growth of our
industry was that we needed some establishment of uniform rules
and regulations, including the medicals, as we discussed
earlier. I think it is a key ingredient for the success of our
industry that the States have the governing power over
everyone. Fighters, organizations, managers, promoters,
trainers, I don't care who it is, if they are involved in the
business and they are making any type of revenue off the event,
they have got to be governed by the State commission. If the
States lose their authority, then boxing is a freelance sport
once again, and once that happens, we sit here in front of you
looking for ways to get the industry back on the right footing.
We need--and I think it was brought out--we relied on the
ABC and Greg Sirb very much as it relates to overseeing not
only the establishment of uniform rules and regulations, but
also the need for uniform contracts between promoters and
fighters. We need those at a data base probably established at
the ABC. That will allow our industry to have an opportunity to
make aware that not only is a certain fighter tied to a certain
promoter, but that those contracts are within the rules and
requirements established by either legislation or our own
policing through the ABC. I would think those were really the
high points of being involved with the boxing task force.
Mr. Oxley. Mr. Holden, do you have a comment, as well, as a
promoter?
Mr. Holden. Well, I think that it relates to my opening
statement. I am, again, 100 percent in favor of the States to
enforce all the laws. I would like to make one quick statement
that a State commissioner told me last month, because I was
calling around. I knew I was going to testify. A lot of times a
State commissioner can lose power, and a decision could go the
wrong way, and he has no control. For instance, this one
commissioner told me when he was new, there was a title fight
coming in. It wasn't this gentleman's bout, but they had to
make him use their judges, their referees, and he sat and he
watched the fight, and it was a bad decision. You know, the
decision was wrong. But this commissioner had no control. He
couldn't reprimand the judges because they were out of State,
they were not his. He couldn't say anything to the referee. He
was out of State, and he was not his.
Again, if we are going to give the States power to enforce
boxing, we need to give them full power. But there is a double-
edged sword to that. If a State commissioner messes up, he is
the one that we should blame. Just like the Holyfield-Lewis
fight everyone says, who is to blame, who is to blame? If you
put the State commissioner in charge all the way down to pick
the judges, the referees, then you have one man to point your
finger at.
Mr. Oxley. So accountability is critical in this whole
encounter.
I guess you would agree with that, Mr. Sirb, in terms of
the accountability of the State commissions.
Mr. Sirb. No question. If the State commissioner has the
control to regulate or--which he is given the right to by his
Governor or State laws, then he should be accountable for it.
If he messes up, then the accountability should stop at his
front door. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Oxley. Some folks criticized the former legislation,
and even some may criticize this from a States rights
standpoint, but really our goal is to empower States so they
can take the reins and take control of this situation and
indeed assume the responsibility also and the accountability
for what happens, both good and bad.
Let me yield to my friend from Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sirb, there are 48 members of the association; is that
right?
Mr. Sirb. Correct.
Mr. Shimkus. Are there some States that do not have boxing
commissions?
Mr. Sirb. Yeah, I am pretty sure we currently have five
that do not have a boxing commission. So in those States when
they want to have fights under the Professional Boxing Safety
Act, they have to apply to a another State commission to come
in and sanction their event. One we do a lot in is the State of
Colorado. That probably does about 10 to 12 shows per year
without a State commission. We are trying to get a commission
formed.
The ABC is very much in favor if you are going to have
boxing, form a commission. And again, it comes back to because
that is where the authority lies, and that is where the
responsibility should be.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me finish with Mr. Daniels. I am a West
Pointer, and our plebe year at West Point we are required to
take boxing, so that is my only experience in the ring,
although I do have the experience of getting hit and having all
my nerve endings tingle at one time. Obvious to say, I lost
that fight.
After a bout are you ever as--as the athlete, are you ever
given a final accounting of the income and expenses and some
type of ledger by which you can make a determination of whether
you have been fully compensated and that there hasn't been any
additional expenses posted that didn't really qualify?
Mr. Daniels. The answer to that is no. I haven't.
Mr. Shimkus. Do you think that would be a needed reform?
Mr. Daniels. Certainly. It could only help to make the
boxer gain trust about his manager or promoter so that
everything is there in black and white and you can see that,
hey, everything here makes good sense, the promoter is not
taking any money from you. Everything you have here is yours.
Mr. Shimkus. And I think we deal with this type of
environment all the time, and really the sunshine on an area
that is perceived as darkness is always a good antiseptic. And
that would probably be another good thing to look at as we deal
with this issue. I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Oxley. I thank the gentleman for his interest. And we
thank all of you for a most enlightening hearing. Your
participation here and support of our legislation is most
important, and it really gives us the kind of impetus that we
need to get legislation enacted.
The Chair would ask unanimous consent that all members'
statements be made part of the record. And with that--and
again, our thanks for your participation--the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Boxing is perhaps the oldest sport in existence, dating back to the
Sumerians in 2600 BC. The ancient Greeks introduced boxing to the
Olympics in 688 BC.
Three years ago, the Commerce Committee reported historic
legislation, the Professional Boxing Safety Act. This Act created the
first comprehensive nationwide regulation for the sport of boxing. It
was a first step, empowering the states to establish a uniform
licensing system with minimum safety standards for boxers.
Today, we are taking the next step. Boxing has begun to cleanup its
act. But it is still rife with corruption, tainted by conflicts of
interest and unconscionable contract requirements. We have before us
legislation to address these problems.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses their view of
which structural problems in boxing are the most ripe for legislative
solutions, and what approaches our Committee should consider. I also
look forward to any comments or suggestions for improvement on H.R.
1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]